The New Mexico State Ethics Commission is putting pressure on a dark money political group to comply with state disclosure laws.
The new group made a splash in April when it began airing radio ads, and its founder, Jeff Apodaca, promoted its political agenda on local radio shows. But unlike other political groups, the New Mexico Project didn’t disclose who contributed to the organization or how it was spending the money, leaving the public in the dark about the special interests underwriting the group.
In its filing, the commission laid out its case and evidence the group meets the criteria for registering as a political committee:
One, it’s an association of two or more people — easily found, along with an Albuquerque address, in its incorporation record on the secretary of state’s website.
Two, the group has received more than $5,000 in contributions — easily found in a search of campaign reports of other political groups. In this case, NM NAIOP PAC gave the group $15,000 in May, which is “conclusive of the monetary-threshold element for being a political committee.” The filing also states Apodaca told local media that he’d raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Three, the group has met the criteria for reporting political activity, in this case thousands spent on advertising on the radio, Facebook and a website.
And four, the group’s primary purpose is to support candidates running for office, the commission asserted — using Apodaca’s own words on local radio programs. Such activity is political, triggering public disclosure of contributions and expenditures exceeding certain levels according to the state’s Campaign Reporting Act, the motion argued.
The motion comes after the commission sued the group and Apodaca, on May 24, which followed a May 15 letter the commission sent the group demanding disclosure, a copy of which is included in the motion.
Court records show the commission sent certified mail to the group June 5 after a summons was returned. On a June 11 local radio program, Apodaca said he had not been served.
In a news release Tuesday, the commission said its efforts are meant to “ensure that New Mexican voters have access to information on who is funding independent expenditures that seek to influence their votes before the upcoming general election in November.”
Apdoaca has not responded to New Mexico In Depth’s questions, sent via email and voicemail.
He has yet to publicly explain why he believes his group isn’t subject to New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act. It’s easy to find the state law on the secretary of state’s website.
Apodaca made misleading statements to local media, suggesting the Ethics Commission wanted to silence him.
It is “infringing on my First Amendment rights, you know, basically telling me I can’t talk about what I’m talking about on radio, and they’re trying to silence me, and the moderate Latino movement that we’ve started here,” Apodaca said on a June 11 radio program.
It was “a hit job,” he said, because his group has “rattled” the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Apodaca questioned why the commission hasn’t “gone after” progressive political committees, but didn’t provide specifics about how progressive groups failed to follow the rules spelled out in New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act. He did not disclose his donors on the air, but did say the group was supported by various New Mexico industries because it represents “pro-business issues and policies.”
In similar fashion, a well-read local blog quoted Apodaca last week saying “Ultra-liberal progressives within our own Democratic Party have now weaponized the NM Ethics Commission to stifle the voices of Latino voters and our first amendment rights of freedom of speech.”
What Apodaca did not say is the Ethics Commission has taken action against both progressive and conservative organizations since its inception. And that the lawsuit against the New Mexico Project is about following state disclosure laws — not about what he can or can’t say.
Due to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past 15 years, groups can spend unlimited money in elections so long as they don’t coordinate with candidates.
But in unleashing unfettered political spending, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of disclosure — greenlighting laws passed by state and local governments to require financial reporting from political groups so the public knows the interests behind the political ads that bombard our airwaves and mailboxes.
As to whether or not the Ethics Commission is carrying water for progressives, it noted in its news release four similar actions it’s brought over the past few years to compel disclosure from dark money groups, evenly divided between groups run by progressives and groups run by conservatives:
